Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#21

Post by grecy »

galdosdi wrote: post #17

Actually, I'm willing to believe that a large cable monopoly's IT department is so incompetent and poorly run, that implementing this successfully is not likely for them. That's not a valid excuse though. A landlord ordered legally to fix a broken heater cannot avoid their duty by complaining "But I'm so BAD at working with heaters! They're confusing!"

I worked in IT at a telco, and you are spot on.

The IT department was incompetent and poorly run, and they couldn't implement anything new for less than 400% of budget (time and money) and it usually didn't work very well.

Although, that's not the reason to not do something like this. The reason not to do something like this is because the bottom line is more important, and impacting that is not good.

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#23

Post by pyrale »

I wonder what the tech crowd would say if government was to order Apple to release windows- and android-compatible OSes, or if it was to rewrite Google's Youtube API terms of use at its convenience.

You guys seem to have a pretty heavy dislike to your cable providers, which is OK, but I wonder how you would react to similar requests towards tech companies.

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#24

Post by gumby »

bogomipz wrote: post #20
korethr wrote: post #11

I can understand Comcast's point. They're moving away from their QAM-based system, to an IP-based one, and one of the inherent assumptions of the design of the latter is that they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device. Building a nation-wide multi-channel video distribution network is no small feat, and takes some non-trivial engineering work. Then along comes the FCC, an…

I'm not understanding your comment. A QAM tuner provides the modulating/decoding of the RF signal over coax. If they are moving away from this then fine but why does that design have "inherent assumptions" that "they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device."? So they can continue to charge people $10 a month in perpetuity? That's about the only reason for that assumption. I…

> A QAM tuner provides the modulating/decoding of the RF signal over coax. If they are moving away from this then fine but why does that design have "inherent assumptions" that "they own and control the network end-points that provide the video to the display device."?

The old QAM systems broadcast metadata (i.e. channel info) on one channel -- if you wanted an update just have your hardware keep watching until it passes by. Comcast's network is, I believe, an IPv6 system with a bunch of terminals and a set of servers at the core like some big enterprise network.

None of which justifies their refusal, which is well above layer 7

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#25

Post by bogomipz »

nickff wrote: post #7
dsr_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC had authority to mandate CableCard; that's an API with an embedded hardware implementation. How do you force compliance? There are always ways. Remember the digital transition? There were carrots and sticks for broadcasters, TV manufacturers... Why do you think the FCC won't have authority to regulate the third parties? The FCC has jurisdiction over interstate and international communications by radio, televi…

The digital transition wasn't an issue of carrots and sticks, it was an issue of 'we're taking the spectrum back, so deal with it'. The FCC owns the spectrum, so it had broad authority to do almost whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted to do it. The FCC can force the cable companies to comply with almost any regulation, but the issue is how you create the API. Do you vote on contentious issues? Do you have an FCC ar…

The FCC doesn't own the spectrum. The spectrum is public a asset. The FCC is the administrator of that asset. I am not trying to nitpick but this is an important distinction.

Originally broadcasters were allocated spectrum and in exchange were expected to fulfill some some basic responsibilities for the public good such as being required to show a certain amount of news content every day. This seems to have been forgotten but these crooked monopolists. They coax and fiber plant also uses public right aways in order to connect to households this is also a public asset.

Their business model is predicated on having access to these public assets(right aways and spectrum.) and yet at every turn they financially gouge customers, provide a substandard experience and prevent citizen from having any choice.

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#26

Post by eridius »

pyrale wrote: post #23

I wonder what the tech crowd would say if government was to order Apple to release windows- and android-compatible OSes, or if it was to rewrite Google's Youtube API terms of use at its convenience. You guys seem to have a pretty heavy dislike to your cable providers, which is OK, but I wonder how you would react to similar requests towards tech companies.

Cable providers are monopolies. In most markets, customers have literally zero choice as to what provider to use. This means that they need to accept a fair amount of government regulation, because there are no market pressures to act as corrective forces without government regulation. Meanwhile, the tech companies you listed are not monopolies (and when Microsoft did engage in monopolistic behavior, they were found to be violating antitrust and were subject to some regulation, e.g. no more bundling IE with Windows and making it difficult to get other browsers, etc).

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#27

Post by Aelinsaar »

wmeredith wrote: post #8
Aelinsaar wrote: post #4

From the monopolists' perspective, I guess every day you delay can be measured in vast sums of money. Moreover, if they're aware of the reality that the "Set top box" has a very limited lifespan in the future, they may just be milking the market while they have it, and to hell with anything else.

> I guess every day you delay can be measured in vast sums of money. Comcast's revenue stream generates about $9 million dollars per HOUR[1]. So yes, every day they delay nets them more money than most people can comprehend. That's not to say that all of their revenue is directly tied to their set top boxes, although a huge portion of it certainly is. It nicely illustrates their monstrous incentive for preserving the…

I mean... I want to believe that I'd be able to say "My time is coming to an end" with that kind of revenue, but I doubt it. That is serious money.

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#28

Post by Zigurd »

pyrale wrote: post #23

I wonder what the tech crowd would say if government was to order Apple to release windows- and android-compatible OSes, or if it was to rewrite Google's Youtube API terms of use at its convenience. You guys seem to have a pretty heavy dislike to your cable providers, which is OK, but I wonder how you would react to similar requests towards tech companies.

Networks are not endpoint devices, and most networks, especially networks provided by ISPs, are open to an unlimited variety of devices. This regulation is more like a documentation and open connection requirement than like a technical requirement. It's also not a novel kind of requirement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#29

Post by teacup50 »

pyrale wrote: post #23

I wonder what the tech crowd would say if government was to order Apple to release windows- and android-compatible OSes, or if it was to rewrite Google's Youtube API terms of use at its convenience. You guys seem to have a pretty heavy dislike to your cable providers, which is OK, but I wonder how you would react to similar requests towards tech companies.

I'd love it if the FCC mandated that the streaming video services provide a common standard that allowed me to, for example, watch Netflix, Amazon, and Apple iTunes, all in one application.

As a consumer, that would be a win.

As a developer, it would create a vibrant marketplace for media applications that simply can't exist today.

Re: Comcast says it’s “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules

#30

Post by gumby »

Aelinsaar wrote: post #4

From the monopolists' perspective, I guess every day you delay can be measured in vast sums of money. Moreover, if they're aware of the reality that the "Set top box" has a very limited lifespan in the future, they may just be milking the market while they have it, and to hell with anything else.

The economics of this business is just weird. Last year comcast gave me a deal: TV + Internet for much less than the price of internet service alone. A "special deal" for one year. I took it. The year was almost up so I called yesterday to cancel. Turns out I can renew this "special" deal, and it's still cheaper than IP service alone. And the agent said to just call again next year and they'll give it to me again. The TV boxes are in the closet -- the agent said if I returned them they would cancel the deal and I'd pay the list price for IP service.

Ironically Nielsen selected my home as a place to track my "tv" viewing but when I told them we don't watch cable or broadcast they weren't interested. Every three months I have that conversation over again. What's funny is they just announced they had "found a way to track Netflix viewing" -- yet they could have been tracking it the same way they track other TV viewing: by asking people. But they don't. Hmm.

BTW odious as Comcast is (and boy do they plumb the depths) I have to praise them for providing full routable IPv6 to every house. I know in Europe and SE Asia that's old hat, but for the US it's exotic.

Post reply on HN